9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, New Delhi, and an order dated 8th August, 1990, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Excise, Varanasi. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Harkauli, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of biris which is subject to excise duty under the Excises and Salt Act. On 21st July, 1983, the then Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- and confirming the demand of Rs. 27,099/-. The petitioner again preferred an appeal to the aforesaid Tribunal which was dismissed by an order dated 31st January, 1994. An application for rectification of the said order was moved which too was rejected by order dated 12th July, 1994. 5. In this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner first contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by virtue of subsequent amendments concludes the proceedings. This argument, therefore, is rejected. 6. The next contention was that in this case, evidence of parties located at Jagadhari and of the bank and the railway authorities has been gathered at the back of the petitioner and he was not allowed an opportunity of cross-examining them though the petitioner specifically requested for the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute the receipt of bank drafts from Jagadhari/Yamuna Nagar, The learned counsel merely contended that mere receipt of bank drafts did not mean that they were in respect of the goods sold. The petitioner did not disclose on what account he received the bank drafts etc. This was a matter exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner and it was his duty to disclose on what account those drafts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
